1992-? Mirror Image of 1952-1980

[BritishDixie]

If you think about, the 1952-1980 Era is almost an exact mirror image, Presidency wise of 1992- era, at least so far. Is that a hint of things to come....

Think about it...

1952: R Victory

[a Person]

George Bush wasn't assassinated.

[Indy Prez]

So do you think Obama's gonna get his second term but with big GOP Congressional wins, have a moderate Republican (or 3rd party candidate)? follow him, who then declines or is defeated for a second term by by a charismatic new-school Democrat/liberal/Justice party candidate. I've observed these patterns before and I can actually see the aforementioned happening.

[cope1989]

Well, this certainly seems plausible, and in fact, I've pondered this comparison myself.

Presidential politics runs in cycles.

From 1932 to 1968, the New Deal coalition put Dems in the White House, but by 1952 the Republicans were able to capitalize of Democrat fatigue while moderating their candidate, and Eisenhower won and presided over a period of economic prosperity. This imroved the GOP's standing and distanced the party''s image from Hoover, laying the groundwork for a Republican resurgence in 1968.

1992 does present a very similar mirror image. Republicans dominate the White House in the 70s and 80s, with the exception of Carter's four years, which many historians see as an aberration brought on by a fleeting Republican backlash after Watergate, but the system remained in place. After countless losses, the Democrats finally capitalized on Republican fatigue and moderated their candidate when they ran Bill Clinton, who positioned himself as a "new Democrat."

Eisenhower and Clinton share striking similarities. Their presidencies represent dealignments in an era strongly associated with the other political party. They governed as moderates, championing the more popular positions of both parties. They presided over an era of peace and economic prosperity. Annd of course, created a new image for their party. Eisenhower removed the stink of Hoover and Clinton removed the stink of Carter. Clinton then laid the groundwork for a resurgence in his party.

The 1960 and 2000 elections were shockingly similar as well. The VP from the previous popular administration (Nixon and Gore) runs but has headwinds from the party system in place. Nixon can't win the south and neither can Gore. The victors come into office and subsequently ruin their parties popularity. Johnson destroys the party with Vietnam (and I'm convinced Kennedy would have done the same in his second term) and Bush destroys his with two wars and an economic collapse. 1968 and 2008 usher in a new era of party dominance. Democrats couldn't unite on anything after Johnson and it looks like the GOP is still splintered after Bush, although not as badly.

If the pattern continues, expect to see more Democratic presidents than Republican ones in the next 20 years. And with America increasingly diversifying and the GOP increasingly appealing to an extreme right wing and aging demographic, it's looking likely.

[hopper]

Well, this certainly seems plausible, and in fact, I've pondered this comparison myself.

Presidential politics runs in cycles.

From 1932 to 1968, the New Deal coalition put Dems in the White House, but by 1952 the Republicans were able to capitalize of Democrat fatigue while moderating their candidate, and Eisenhower won and presided over a period of economic prosperity. This imroved the GOP's standing and distanced the party''s image from Hoover, laying the groundwork for a Republican resurgence in 1968.

1992 does present a very similar mirror image. Republicans dominate the White House in the 70s and 80s, with the exception of Carter's four years, which many historians see as an aberration brought on by a fleeting Republican backlash after Watergate, but the system remained in place. After countless losses, the Democrats finally capitalized on Republican fatigue and moderated their candidate when they ran Bill Clinton, who positioned himself as a "new Democrat."

Eisenhower and Clinton share striking similarities. Their presidencies represent dealignments in an era strongly associated with the other political party. They governed as moderates, championing the more popular positions of both parties. They presided over an era of peace and economic prosperity. Annd of course, created a new image for their party. Eisenhower removed the stink of Hoover and Clinton removed the stink of Carter. Clinton then laid the groundwork for a resurgence in his party.

The 1960 and 2000 elections were shockingly similar as well. The VP from the previous popular administration (Nixon and Gore) runs but has headwinds from the party system in place. Nixon can't win the south and neither can Gore. The victors come into office and subsequently ruin their parties popularity. Johnson destroys the party with Vietnam (and I'm convinced Kennedy would have done the same in his second term) and Bush destroys his with two wars and an economic collapse. 1968 and 2008 usher in a new era of party dominance. Democrats couldn't unite on anything after Johnson and it looks like the GOP is still splintered after Bush, although not as badly.

If the pattern continues, expect to see more Democratic presidents than Republican ones in the next 20 years. And with America increasingly diversifying and the GOP increasingly appealing to an extreme right wing and aging demographic, it's looking likely.

The GOP can change up though and be more moderate though to win elections. That is what the Dems will have to worry about. If the GOP just keeps their political platform as is they will be in trouble. I was reading a study on the American Electorate by Ruy Texiera last week. Texiera sugested the Republicans should just blow up their existing base "now" and trade it in for a new base.

[cope1989]

Well, you're right on a lot of that.

The movers and shakers in the GOP know they have to change. They represent a shrinking coalition and they're losing elections that should be a cake walk because they can't get a lot of the voters they need. If Republicans did just 10 points better on average with Hispanics, for instance, they would do so much better in the SW and maybe even have a shot in California from time to time.

The problem is that building or rebuilding a winning coalition takes a lot of time. After the New Deal Coalition broke apart, the Democrats had to slowly rebuild and rebrand their party, and it resulted in some spectacular defeats. Only 20 years later, in 1992, did the party's new coalition of new minorities, young people, women, New Englanders and moderate suburbanites on both coasts, finally deliver the Democrats a substantial victory.

(for the record, I realize many Reagan Democrats returned to the fold in '92, and a lot of white Southerners voted for him too, but Carter had that as well in '76 and it proved a weak coalition. The new Democrats Clinton brought into the fold transformed the party.)

The Republicans could take a wide turn and try to appeal to a completely new coalition of voters- probably those who feel alienated from both parties, like libertarians for instance, but that would in turn alienate the voters that they actually have in the bag now. The GOP will have to slowly move away from their neocon philosophy as a lot of their older supporters   *eh hem*    die off and get replaced by younger voters who are more accepting of diversity, gay marriage and the like.

[Lloyd Bentsen's Ghost]

George Bush wasn't assassinated.

No, but he did sort of turn into a Republican version of Lyndon Johnson about a year or two into office.

[hopper]

Well, you're right on a lot of that.

The movers and shakers in the GOP know they have to change. They represent a shrinking coalition and they're losing elections that should be a cake walk because they can't get a lot of the voters they need. If Republicans did just 10 points better on average with Hispanics, for instance, they would do so much better in the SW and maybe even have a shot in California from time to time.

The problem is that building or rebuilding a winning coalition takes a lot of time. After the New Deal Coalition broke apart, the Democrats had to slowly rebuild and rebrand their party, and it resulted in some spectacular defeats. Only 20 years later, in 1992, did the party's new coalition of new minorities, young people, women, New Englanders and moderate suburbanites on both coasts, finally deliver the Democrats a substantial victory.

(for the record, I realize many Reagan Democrats returned to the fold in '92, and a lot of white Southerners voted for him too, but Carter had that as well in '76 and it proved a weak coalition. The new Democrats Clinton brought into the fold transformed the party.)

The Republicans could take a wide turn and try to appeal to a completely new coalition of voters- probably those who feel alienated from both parties, like libertarians for instance, but that would in turn alienate the voters that they actually have in the bag now. The GOP will have to slowly move away from their neocon philosophy as a lot of their older supporters   *eh hem*    die off and get replaced by younger voters who are more accepting of diversity, gay marriage and the like.

Yeah the 1972 and 1984 Predidential Elections were spectacular defeats for the Dems winning 1 state and DC both times. Even the 1980 and 1988 Presidential Elections were drubbings.

I think the GOP has a great chance to compete for Asian ethinic voters with the Dems if they go moderate on social issues. They still need a huge chunk of the Hispanic Vote with that said. They need to listen to the Hispanic Community with great interest because they are going to need their votes in the future. Listening to Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush could be a good start or re-start with the Hispanic Community. They did try to build a Hispanic Base with George W. Bush but it went up in smoke after the 2006 immigration debate.

Yeah I do agree if the GOP abandon their base now that would be a huge problem so basically they can't do what Ruy Texiera said.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

^ By Asains, do you mean Arabs, Indians, or Yellows?

[hopper]

^ By Asains, do you mean Arabs, Indians, or Yellows?

Yeah you could say Indians. I was thinking more in the lines of Filipino's, Chinese, and Japanese type of people. Arabs I consider "Middle Eastern".

[cope1989]

Well, you're right on a lot of that.

The movers and shakers in the GOP know they have to change. They represent a shrinking coalition and they're losing elections that should be a cake walk because they can't get a lot of the voters they need. If Republicans did just 10 points better on average with Hispanics, for instance, they would do so much better in the SW and maybe even have a shot in California from time to time.

The problem is that building or rebuilding a winning coalition takes a lot of time. After the New Deal Coalition broke apart, the Democrats had to slowly rebuild and rebrand their party, and it resulted in some spectacular defeats. Only 20 years later, in 1992, did the party's new coalition of new minorities, young people, women, New Englanders and moderate suburbanites on both coasts, finally deliver the Democrats a substantial victory.

(for the record, I realize many Reagan Democrats returned to the fold in '92, and a lot of white Southerners voted for him too, but Carter had that as well in '76 and it proved a weak coalition. The new Democrats Clinton brought into the fold transformed the party.)

The Republicans could take a wide turn and try to appeal to a completely new coalition of voters- probably those who feel alienated from both parties, like libertarians for instance, but that would in turn alienate the voters that they actually have in the bag now. The GOP will have to slowly move away from their neocon philosophy as a lot of their older supporters   *eh hem*    die off and get replaced by younger voters who are more accepting of diversity, gay marriage and the like.

Yeah the 1972 and 1984 Predidential Elections were spectacular defeats for the Dems winning 1 state and DC both times. Even the 1980 and 1988 Presidential Elections were drubbings.

I think the GOP has a great chance to compete for Asian ethinic voters with the Dems if they go moderate on social issues. They still need a huge chunk of the Hispanic Vote with that said. They need to listen to the Hispanic Community with great interest because they are going to need their votes in the future. Listening to Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush could be a good start or re-start with the Hispanic Community. They did try to build a Hispanic Base with George W. Bush but it went up in smoke after the 2006 immigration debate.

Yeah I do agree if the GOP abandon their base now that would be a huge problem so basically they can't do what Ruy Texiera said.

Hispanics will vote like almost every other new immigrant group. They will vote D for the next decade or two while they still experience discrimination and poverty, but as they continue to assimilate and move up the economic and social ladder, they'll begin to split their vote between the parties as the sense of Hispanic solidarity dissipates.

Italians and Irish used to be in the bag for Democrats, but now I'd guess they split evenly between the parties. But of course, there really aren't any recent polls out that prove or disprove my theory- because no one really cares about the Irish or Italian vote anymore, a sign of their total assimilation into the general white population. Such will happen with most Hispanics.

For instance:

Italian American Democrats
-Nancy Pelosi
-Mario Cuomo
-Patrick Leahy (half Italian)

Italian American Republicans
-Antony Scalia
-Rick Santorum
-Chris Christie

[Nichlemn]

No, there's far from sufficient evidence that these so-called patterns exist.

/nearly all these threads.

[muon2]

George Bush wasn't assassinated.

And he didn't have the landslide victory in 2004 that LBJ had in 1964. A true mirror would have also had a significant third party splinter in 2008 that was from the GOP but really aligning towards the Dems. The parallel seems to only apply for the first three elections of the OP.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

How did this happen? Two words: Bill Clinton.

[BritishDixie]

I'm not suggesting that it's totally alike, but there are interesting paralells.

"Hispanics will vote like almost every other new immigrant group. They will vote D for the next decade or two while they still experience discrimination and poverty, but as they continue to assimilate and move up the economic and social ladder, they'll begin to split their vote between the parties as the sense of Hispanic solidarity dissipates.

Italians and Irish used to be in the bag for Democrats, but now I'd guess they split evenly between the parties. But of course, there really aren't any recent polls out that prove or disprove my theory- because no one really cares about the Irish or Italian vote anymore, a sign of their total assimilation into the general white population. Such will happen with most Hispanics"

Sadly this has not happened with blacks.

[cope1989]

I'm not suggesting that it's totally alike, but there are interesting paralells.

"Hispanics will vote like almost every other new immigrant group. They will vote D for the next decade or two while they still experience discrimination and poverty, but as they continue to assimilate and move up the economic and social ladder, they'll begin to split their vote between the parties as the sense of Hispanic solidarity dissipates.

Italians and Irish used to be in the bag for Democrats, but now I'd guess they split evenly between the parties. But of course, there really aren't any recent polls out that prove or disprove my theory- because no one really cares about the Irish or Italian vote anymore, a sign of their total assimilation into the general white population. Such will happen with most Hispanics"

Sadly this has not happened with blacks.

The black vote is very different. African Americans by and large didn't have the same immigrant experience, starting with the fact that they didn't immigrate here willingly. They were enslaved until 150 years ago and they were legally second class citizens in a large section of the country less than 50 years ago.

As a whole, the black population has not assimilated and prospered like other minority groups, so there's still a large sense of black solidarity, and it reflects itself in the vote.

But back to the topic at hand, which I think is fascinating:

There are some key differences between the Eisenhower shift and the Clinton shift. The south played a huge role in the realignment in the 50s and 60s. Eisenhower won many southern states, including some in the deep south, which would have been unheard of even 20 years ago. Eisenhower's victories laid the groundwork for a GOP resurgence in the south that continued into the 60s 70s and 80s- probably the main reason the Republicans cleaned up in so many elections.

The Clinton shift that we are still seeing today has more to do with how individual groups of people vote, regardless of what region of the country in which they live. The south is still solidly GOP, but democrats have a lock in certain states due to a new coalition that used to be non partisan.

I've already mentioned new minorities, like Hispanics and Asians. For now, they are solid D and tip the balance in states like California and maybe even Nevada. But the real group to watch is white collar professionals in the creative class-people in advertising, marketing, fashion, tech and scientific industries. They have experienced a curious realignment into the Democratic party, based almost solely on social and cultural issues.

They wield their electoral power in states across the country, from Colorado to Oregon to New Jersey to North Carolina. I guess they're really turned off by the culturally populist rhetoric from the right. Most are fiscally moderate, but aren't threatened by issues like abortion, gay marriage and immigration. The GOP has picked up on fear over these issues from blue collar whites and it has worked for them, but they eventually lost the vote of the creative class. This is probably the Democrats have moved to the right fiscally but moved to the left socially.

This isn't a regional realignment but a cultural one and it looks like it will stay in place for a while.

[BritishDixie]

So I presume that social issues seem to have taken on greater importance to the "creative class" than economic issues, otherwise I don't think 2012 would be the narrow race it is.

[kingthlayer]

I think it is too early to talk about this. If Obama loses in 2012, then this is going to look awfully premature. And in fact Democrats could be the ones stuck with high unemployment and low economic growth of a 1 term Obama presidency, if he ends up getting booted out.

[muon2]

So I presume that social issues seem to have taken on greater importance to the "creative class" than economic issues, otherwise I don't think 2012 would be the narrow race it is.

Not exactly. Social liberalism has taken on more importance, but the "creative class" typically recognizes the complexity of economic policy and shies away from simple solutions from either the left or the right. They appreciate some fiscal conservatism in the form of balanced budgets and lower debt, but don't mind government support of a wide variety of programs even if that means modest new tax revenue. Many in that class rely directly or indirectly on government support for their own work.

[cope1989]

I think it is too early to talk about this. If Obama loses in 2012, then this is going to look awfully premature. And in fact Democrats could be the ones stuck with high unemployment and low economic growth of a 1 term Obama presidency, if he ends up getting booted out.

You could be right, but I'm still expecting an Obama win. Americans rarely fire one political party after only one term in office, just like they rarely give the same party more than 2 terms in office- at least in the modern era.

The two exceptions are Jimmy Carter losing in 1980, although I argue that the entire Carter presidency was based on a fleeting backlash. GOP dominance on the White House was still in place, so it was hard for him to keep a winning coalition.

And then of course, George Bush beat Dukakis in 1988, but people forget that originally voters were ready for change and Dukakis was leading in the polls significantly. Dukakis and voters were sideswiped by one of the most unprecedented smear campaigns in modern history. So his presidency was kind of an aberration as well. To me, this explains why his approval ratings were so pitifully low, even amidst a mild recession that was beginning to subside by late 1992.

So yes, Obama could lose this year. But it will take something terrible, like a double dip recession or a massive scandal in his administration. And Romney will have to really start looking great to the voters. But barring all of these possibilities, I think things are set up for an Obama win, just like they were set up for a Bush win in 2004.

[BritishDixie]

I think it is too early to talk about this. If Obama loses in 2012, then this is going to look awfully premature. And in fact Democrats could be the ones stuck with high unemployment and low economic growth of a 1 term Obama presidency, if he ends up getting booted out.

You could be right, but I'm still expecting an Obama win. Americans rarely fire one political party after only one term in office, just like they rarely give the same party more than 2 terms in office- at least in the modern era.

The two exceptions are Jimmy Carter losing in 1980, although I argue that the entire Carter presidency was based on a fleeting backlash. GOP dominance on the White House was still in place, so it was hard for him to keep a winning coalition.

And then of course, George Bush beat Dukakis in 1988, but people forget that originally voters were ready for change and Dukakis was leading in the polls significantly. Dukakis and voters were sideswiped by one of the most unprecedented smear campaigns in modern history. So his presidency was kind of an aberration as well. To me, this explains why his approval ratings were so pitifully low, even amidst a mild recession that was beginning to subside by late 1992.

So yes, Obama could lose this year. But it will take something terrible, like a double dip recession or a massive scandal in his administration. And Romney will have to really start looking great to the voters. But barring all of these possibilities, I think things are set up for an Obama win, just like they were set up for a Bush win in 2004.

I think Romney is much maligned, he has done a lot of good.

But anyway, at the moment I would agree with your analysis. I think he and the Democrats almost have a lock on the Presidency. With solid support from the North-East and West Coast, plus Hawaii and Illinois I think the Republicans will have a hard time winning the Presidency.